The Senate On January19-27

The United States would lose its name and stand divided if the Constitution did not bring the thirteen colonies into one body. Within this governing body, fears arise from the difficulty of controlling power in a central government, while still trying to keep unity between the states. Understanding that the United States was formed based on the people’s irritation with the corruption of the control of power in England, the Constitution reassured the people that their freedoms were going to be kept, but it required their trust. The founders of the United States Constitution established a just government through encompassing equal representation, with the people as the foundation, and protecting the injustices that could arise with the misuse of power.

There exists a similarity between both the federalists and the anti-federalists. Both felt that government was necessary because ‘men were not “angels”’ (Bryner, Public Virtue and the Roots of American Government, 1987). However, they disagree on the size of government and the republic. The federalists wanted a large republic with a central government while the anti-federalist wanted a small republic with a state government. In this essay, I generally agree with the statements except the part where federalists were republicans because they envisioned the commonweal of the national community. The weakness of this argument is that there may be a false impression that the candidate is truly virtuous. Thus, when he becomes the national government,

The most politicized debate in American history has been the arguments made by the Federalists and the Antifederalists over the ideas and powers stated within the United States Constitution. A large number of authors who write about the debates between these two political groups present the ideas of the Federalist and Antifederalist as separate, opposing ideologies about how the U.S. Constitution should either stay the same for the sake of the country or be amended to grant border rights to the public and states. To begin a paper about how this assumption of the two factions always being at odds, first there should be an explanation about the Federalists’ and Antifederalists’ main arguments. The Virginia debate over ratification will be the used as the platform to present the details of their arguments. After those two main objectives are complete, the presentation of information found on the topics that the two parties had arguments between themselves over the true future of the Constitution, and that certain Federalists and Antifederalist shared certain ideas about the problems this Constitution could cause or solve for the United States. To conclude those ideas, a presentation of the political figures of this time period will be used to understand the similarities and differences between the parties. Towards the end of the paper, there will be an explanation of how the ideas of the two parties, mostly Antifederalists, have led to the creation of amendments added to the

The primary source is Federalist paper No. 10, which is a the first of James Madison’s contributions to the series of essays known as the Federalist Papers. This essay is a highly regarded paper among the collection. The Federalist No. 10 is merely rhetoric used to rationalize the benefits of a new system of government, explain how the new union will be constructed and most crucial to the essay, sway public opinion to support the ratification of the new constitution. This particular primary source is imperative to understanding the complexity of the United States government at the time of its birth as well as now. Madison makes an argument that the expansion of the federal government is necessary to protect liberty against the excess of democracy. The document reveals the advantages of a Republic and serves as an explanation as to why the U.S. espouses a Republican form of government and the Constitution.

In the late 1700s, the United States had began to split into two factions: Federalists and Antifederalists. Factions are groups of citizens united by a common interest. The reasoning behind the differing views of how the government works across the world was best said by Locke “Men are equal in a natural sense, but society establishes many dimensions that are unequal”. (Barbour and Wright, 2017). In the states, Federalists wanted a strong central government while anti-federalists wanted a weak one. “The Georgians, for example, wanted a strong central authority to provide military protection for their huge, underpopulated state against the Creek Confederacy; Jerseymen and Connecticuters wanted to escape from economic bondage to New York; the Virginians hoped to establish a system which would give that great state its rightful place in the councils of the republic” (Roche, 800). The one thing they agreed on was having George Washington as president. George Washington tried to be a neutral leader of the United States and suggested for the states to stay together rather than divide into factions. “Thomas Jefferson is credited as stating: “North and South will hang together if they have you to hang on””(Jamison, 2016).

The Federalist Papers written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay are one of the greatest collections of literature from the time period of 1787 to 1788 when the Constitution was being ratified by the states. This collection of eighty-five essays was written for the states, to help them better understand and grasp a concept of why they should vote for the ratification of The Constitution. Why did the Madison, Hamilton, and Jay write The Federalist Papers and what is there underlying meaning? Who were James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay? What was Madison trying to say in regards to the concept of federalism, separation of powers, republics and ratifying the Constitution and why? Each of these questions can be further explored and answered in Madison’s Federalist #51. By analyzing #51, with the addition of #10, clarity can be gained on the meaning behind these essays and there obvious importance to the nation’s history.

At this time it seemed that the issue of slavery was the only problem in the United States, almost as if a slave was being forced down the throats of the freesoilers (Document F). Stephen Douglas drafted the Kansas-Nebraska Acts in hopes of adding two new states: Kansas and Nebraska. Although it seemed that one would be a slave state, and the other a free state, the slavery issue would be decided by popular sovereignty. Many opposed this decision but did not know how to deal with it. The reason they did not know was because the Constitution did not mention it. William Lloyd Garrison said “the Constitution which subjects them to hopeless bondage is one that we cannot swear to support” (Document E). He was trying to say that the constitution can’t answer the question of slavery because the words “slave” and “slavery” are not in the constitution.

In debate of the ratification of the Constitution, the Federalists and the Anti- Federalists agreed on several things: the necessity of some form of national government, the preservation of the right to vote, and the need to secure our liberties. The Federalists wanted a strong central government, whereas the Anti- Federalists wanted more power reserved to the state government. The right to vote is important for both sides, but they hold conflicting views on the amount of involvement through the power of the vote. Finally, individual rights is something that they both strongly agree upon, but where it should be officially held in our documents presents a huge conflict. Between Federalists and Anti- Federalists, there is an understanding in the importance of these matters, however each side has different interpretations in mind.

Democracy in the United States: A comprehensive look at the Pros and Cons of a Federalist Society and Individual Freedoms.

The arguments made by Federalists and anti-Federalists regarding the office and powers of the presidency during the ratifying debates that followed the drafting of the Constitution in 1787 were persuasive, but distinctly at odds. Both sides, however, sought the same thing, how best to allocate power in a unified republic of states? From this question opposing views developed as to whether or not a President should even exist, and if so, what powers he should be granted. I will briefly examine the presidential powers that were primarily awarded under Article II of the new Constitution. I will then explore the opposing arguments that arose during the ratifying debates concerning those granted powers. I do so in the interest of offering a

In late eighteenth-century America, the ideal form of government was widely contested. When the American colonies were under British rule, they were subject to the almost-tyrannical British government, in which they were not fully represented. After the colonies achieved independence, two main political factions emerged: the Republicans and the Federalists. The Republicans, scarred by the overbearing British government, advocated for a weak federal government with individual state governments, which prevented the concentration of power in a single party and promoted a form of more direct representation. However, this system proved to be ineffective, for the federal government’s lack of power was dangerous and inefficient. The Federalists, on the other hand, supported a strong federal government. Cognizant of the negative implications of local state governments, the Federalists published a series of essays during 1787 and 1788 that supported the stronger national government that resulted from the Constitutional Convention. In “Federalist no. 51”, James Madison, a key component of the Federalist movement, described the role of government and its relationship with the people. He wrote,

On January 26, 1830, the government was put to the test by the people of South Carolina. The representatives of South Carolina fought to not have the Tariff of 1828 because it would have hurt the farmers of South Carolina financially. The Tariff of 1828 would have raised the price on their cost of planting for the advantage of the north. Daniel Webster led the argument, in which he wholeheartedly believed that the states right to reject the Tariff. Webster made some effective arguments. One that stood out the most is the claim that the citizens are in charge of the government. The Government and constitution would not have even existed if it were not for the people to establish and raise it, therefore the states have the right to reject anything

In 1787, the creation of the U.S. Constitution would grant the national government dominance over the states. However, the southerners still felt that they should be able determine whether or not they accepted certain acts, and the idea of nullification was proposed. John C. Calhoun was first to present the states right to nullify, or ignore federal laws in which they disagreed, in his doctrine.[6] Things seemed to have remained calm until the commencement of Lincoln’s presidency when nullification was no longer allowed.

Federalism was an inevitable and paramount mechanism to creation the of the Union. Therefore, it is acceptable that its governing principles would define and refine a majority of the nation’s history. Shaping the government, laws, and politics of the current and future generations during the creation of the Constitution, federalism permanently altered the life of every American. Federalism and the Constitution were derived from a similar ideal: endurance of free society had to be preserved by a sense of unity that acted as a safeguard against prevalent dangers, advanced the common good while still maintaining responsiveness to the diversity of the nation (Wechsler, 1954). The Constitution established a central government that possessed the capacity to interpret its

Any nationwide endeavor across the world over is always faced with a myriad of challenges when one factor in, the interest of different individuals or groups. During the early years of the USA, there were many problems that politicians at the time faced when trying to create and strengthen the country’s Constitution. In the early 1780’s the young country was in a deep depression, and this played a key role in influencing the exercise as it ultimately led to a heated debate about the powers of the National and State governments. Most of the conservative politicians at the time preferred a stronger federal government while state radicals believed that states should have more power since it was in a better position to determine what was best for their citizens (Jilson, 2009). More sticking points divided the founding fathers which threatened the stability and establishment of the USA, such as slavery and federalism.